I’ve seen some convoluted explanations in my time, but this one from the American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, is at the top of the pile. Rice was on Al Jazeera (English) a few days ago trying to explain why the Obama administration last week had used its first veto at the UN Security Council to kill a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. The proposed resolution was defeated 14 to 1, or I should say 1 to 14 because being one of the five permanent members with veto power, the US was able to block its passage all by itself. The resolution, which you can read here, had more than 100 cosponsors.
Rice was clearly uncomfortable and occasionally hostile during the exchange. Asked why the Obama administration vetoed the resolution, Rice offered this:
Our goal is and must remain—as soon as possible—establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And we looked at the resolution in the light of whether it would advance that goal or harden positions and set it back. As I said today in the Security Council and as President Obama has said on many occasions, the United States strongly opposes continued Israeli settlement activity. So our objection was not on that point. On that point we were united with the rest of the Council. The question for us was, would this resolution and its adoption advance that goal of achieving an independent Palestinian state or cause one or both parties to dig in and make it even harder to resume the very necessary process of direct negotiations?
Rice then said that it is the administration’s position that the resolution would have encouraged the latter scenario, saying further,
We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. There’s no question about that. We have been clear and unequivocal. But the question is, if you simply try to make declaratory statements, will that lead to the halt of settlement activity? No. In fact, it might even encourage increased settlement activity...I think perhaps there would have been more settlement activity had the resolution been adopted.
Rice went on to say that the resolution was an effort to “divert attention” from resolving the conflict.
Before I get into the substance of her explanation, I’d just like to point out to Ambassador Rice that a UN Security Council resolution is not a “declaratory statement,” but international law. Here’s the UN ambassador from the most powerful country in the world likening a binding international resolution to a mere “declaratory statement.” That tells us a lot about what the Obama administration thinks of the UN and international law. In fact, Rice said outright that passage of the resolution wouldn’t lead to a halt in Israeli settlement building (and might even increase it, but more on that in a moment), and this was the main reason she voted against it.
Now it’s probably true that passage would not have prompted Israel to halt its current settlement expansions. Indeed, Israel is currently violation of multiple UNSC resolutions, ignoring them with impunity. And the main reason is because it faces no negative consequences whatsoever. On this front, Obama is simply continuing the policy of his predecessors: pledge unwavering support to Israel with billions of dollars in annual foreign aid, block UNSC resolutions that are critical of Israel, and occasionally condemn Israeli settlement activity as “counterproductive” or “illegitimate” (but not illegal), while doing absolutely nothing about it.
Considered in light of these facts, Rice’s explanation is tautological: We vetoed the resolution because it would not have halted settlements and also because we refuse to encourage Israel to stop building them anyway. And one of the ways in which we refuse to do that is by vetoing resolutions critical of settlements.
But what about Rice’s other assertion that passage of the resolution would lead to an increase in settlement activity? What she’s essentially saying is, Israel has such contempt for international law and even its main ally, the US, that ratification of such an agreement would have prompted Israel to accelerate its settlement building just for the sake of defying the resolution. In other words, even if we voted in favor of it, Israel would have given us, and the international community, the middle finger by doing the exact opposite of what we called on them to do.
If that’s the case, then what the hell? If Israel is going to be unresponsive to US attempts to rein in its settlement building, then why continue supporting—politically and financially—this ally which clearly has no interest in heeding our calls to halt such activity?
Such a question is rendered inapplicable by the fact that the US does not really care about settlements or the Palestinian right to self-determination. For more than three decades, this has been made clear through America’s actions and inactions regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Obama administration’s veto is just the latest US enablement of illegal Israeli expansionism, which will surely continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of who occupies the White House.
Dr. Grant tours Jurassic Park. Oh wait, that’s Mike Huckabee admiring the wall the Israelis built to dehumanize Palestinians in the West Bank.
Little noticed in a week of political upheaval in Egypt and climatic chaos across much of the United States, was former Arkansas Republican governor and ordained evangelical minister Mike Huckabee’s jaunt to Israel with the demented actor Jon Voight. The charming Huck has a curious take on Israeli-Palestinian relations, but only if we do not examine it through the lens of a deranged evangelical zealot who is rabidly pro-Israel while simultaneously believing that its Jewish inhabitants are doomed to Hell because they reject his messiah.
The relationship between the Israel and America’s evangelical Christian community is one of the most cynical and dangerous duos in the history of American politics. One would have to go back to the occasional alliances between Whig and Know-Nothing politicians in the 1840s and 50s to find something even remotely comparable. Though on those occasions, the arrangements were forged entirely by domestic factions. In our day, Israel has a well-oiled lobbying machine at its disposal in the form of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, but is also happy to accept the substantial financial contributions, resources, and public relations efforts of American evangelicals who help do its bidding on Capitol Hill. For their part in this lobbying 69, the evangelicals get to chase—and perhaps even facilitate—their wildest eschatological fantasy, which depends on the preservation and flourishing of the Israeli state.
During his trip Huckabee, who is still in Israel as of this writing, has already shown that his beliefs on the Israel-Palestine conflict are in lockstep with those of Israel’s ultra-nationalists.
“I think there probably should be [a Palestinian state], but it doesn’t necessarily have to be on the tiny postage-stamp-size piece of land that is Israel,” he said. “I’m not against a Palestinian state. I am against, and not really against, but I’m just being realistic - I don’t see how it works to put two people and two governments right on top of each other.”
I am sure the Palestinians felt much the same way in 1948.
Huckabee went on to blast the Arab position - which has been adopted by the rest of the world - that the Jews must stop building in Judea and Samaria, lands claimed by the Palestinians, in order for peace to be achieved.
“To tell Jewish people, ‘You cannot live here, you cannot raise your children here,’ this is the true racism, this is apartheid,” said Huckabee. “I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English.”
Huckabee’s position is one of the more blatantly ludicrous but increasingly common apologias for wanton Israeli settlement expansion in violation of international law. Here is a former and prospective presidential candidate announcing, for all intents and purposes, that yes, the Palestinians ought to have a state, but not one in Samaria (West Bank), or Judea, which is a name so vague it could conceivably encompass Israel proper, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. This begs the question, where exactly does Huckabee envision a future Palestinian state existing?
Furthermore, for him to call the de jure (but not certainly not de facto) prohibition of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem, apartheid, is outrageous. Apparently Huckabee does not know what the word “occupied” means, and so we could conclude that he would have a hard time grasping why it might have been bad form for German people to start moving into already occupied Paris.
Second, Huckabee has toured the Israeli-built West Bank wall that has been making life miserable for tens of thousands of Palestinians who have found it more difficult to access vital services. (But likely not from the Palestinian side.) In some instances, the wall juts into to Palestinian territory and has cut off some of them from their own land. Then again, this is probably of no concern to Huckabee, a man of god. His remarks make it clear that the West Bank is Israeli territory and the Palestinians are just living on it. For now.
Without question Huckabee is attempting to garner the support of the Israeli lobby for a possible presidential run in 2012. Worse, however, is the fact that Huck genuinely believes what he is saying, which in effect means that he would enable or outright aid any and all illegal settlement expansions and whatever other actions the Israeli government feels obliged to take. Not that this would be much different from current US policy, but Huckabee’s view is no doubt informed by divine sanction. Judea belongs to the Israelites as the bible says. And the governor is not going to quibble over details with the man upstairs.
Huckabee’s comments should give the Israelis pause. They ought to be skeptical of Huckabee for the same reason they ought to be skeptical of any other Christian Right zealot who becomes (meta)physically aroused at the prospect of the Rapture and End Times. The Book of Revelations appears to be the main bond holding together this strange relationship, and at least one side seems hell-bent on turning biblical prophecy into self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Israel has the right to defend itself against rock-throwing Palestinian punks using any means necessary.” - Some douchebag American pundit.
The American response to Israel’s deadly commando raid on the “freedom flotilla” in international waters has been predictably uniform. Words of approbation can be found everywhere from the business press, to Fox News and MSNBC, to Congress, and to the American public in general. Although none of this is surprising, the blind allegiance that many Americans pledge to Israel never ceases to amaze me. No government—including America’s own—receives as many apologias as Israel’s from Americans.
Of course, the United States has a pretty effective propaganda system for precluding and stifling substantive debate on critical issues. Foreign policy debates generally focus on whether a policy is “worth it” from a cost-benefit perspective. Questions regarding the rightness of the policy are rendered unnecessary by the media’s unsaid assumption that whatever we do is right from a moral standpoint. News broadcasts and opinion pieces reflect this practice. During the run up to the Iraq war, Americans who were not so enthusiastic about waging an unjust and foolish war were the targets of derisive attacks in the media. The Neoconservative bastion Fox News set the tone for the war coverage, with its partisan pundits launching into fascistic tirades against the anti-war Left, calling them “un-American” and “traitors.” Bill O’Reilly declared that while he respected the people’s right to free speech, once the war started he expected everyone “to shut up” and fall in line. On O’Reilly’s own network, token liberal Alan Colmes did just that.
A similar scene plays out with respect to Israeli actions in the international arena, but the spectrum of debate is even narrower than discussions on U.S. foreign policy. Last week’s flotilla raid provides an instructive example. The flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid with the stated objective of defying the Israeli-Egyptian naval blockade of Gaza. As most Americans do not know, the blockade has been condemned throughout the world, by the United Nations, by human rights groups, by the European Union, and scores of others for contributing to a humanitarian crisis in which nearly three-quarters of Gazans live on less than $1 a day. As the Jewish international jurist Richard Goldstone said in the famed Goldstone Report on Israel’s 2008-2009 siege on Gaza,
“Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.”
Goldstone’s report was overwhelming condemned by the U.S. Congress, owing to our elected officials’ compulsive need to support Israel always no matter what.
Take Senator Scott Brown (R – Massachusetts). This guy’s been in Washington for just a few months and already he’s got the standard position on Israel down pat. Here are some selected remarks from Brown’s speech to dinner sponsored by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as quoted by the Boston Globe:
“I don’t need polling or political strategists to help define a nuanced stance on Israel,” Brown said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. “We are engaged in a worldwide struggle against radical, violent jihad. It is the defining issue of our time. Our best friends and the strongest allies in this fight are in the State of Israel.”
“Let’s remember—Israel is our ally. Israel is a democracy,” Brown added. “Hamas is a terrorist group with clear and genuine intentions of destroying Israel’s way of life.”
[…]
“[T]he story of Israel made a distinct impression on me at a young age.”
[…]
“Their ability to maintain their identity and culture against enormous obstacles mirrors America’s own struggle for independence.”
[…]
“Now I know I am still the new guy on the block, with a little more than 100 days in the Senate under my belt, but I have placed U.S.—Israeli security as one of the most significant and highest priorities on my agenda.
[…]
“A safe, secure Israel, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States and its allies is essential to the continued liberty of our nations,” Brown said. “Our fates have never been more intertwined. May God continue to bless Israel and the United States of America.”
What a pandering jackoff. Israeli security is one of your highest priorities, Senator Brown? Great. That’s what we need. Another U.S. Senator who puts Israel ahead of America. I think Joe Lieberman is doing enough of that for the other 99 Senators combined, so you don’t have to worry too much about it.
Brown also stated that the U.S. should commit itself to “unwavering support” of Israel. Vice President Joe Biden made similar comments when he visited Israel a couple of months ago, despite the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu totally showed him up when the government announced the construction of 1,600 settlement units in disputed East Jerusalem while he was there.
Excuse me, but what the fuck? Why should the U.S. promise any country its unwavering support? The truth is “unwavering support” is code for “Do whatever you want.” That’s what “unwavering support” means, and this is why the U.S. can never act as a serious impartial arbiter of the Israel-Palestine conflict: because the referee has big money one on of the teams. Sure, presidents going back decades have said all kinds of wonderful things about the Palestinian right to self-determination, but they don’t mean it because they give Israel the nudge-nudge, wink-wink treatment: “What’s that? You’re adding even more illegal settlements? Well, we don’t like it, but here’s more military aid anyway. And we will definitely not let the U.N. Security Council pass any resolutions condemning you.” The whole thing is a charade and a farce.
The American media is happy to adopt the framework established by the American and Israel governments, which translates into blind support for Israel among the general population. What was the framework of debate in the press after the Israeli raid on the humanitarian convoy? Was there discussion about the legality of Israel’s attack on unarmed vessels in international waters? No. Was there discussion about the legality and human consequences of Israel’s blockade of Gaza? No. Was there discussion about how Gaza is a de facto Bantustan where poverty and malnourishment are rampant? No.
The central question that concerned the American media was whether or not the activists on the ship on which nine people were killed attacked the Israeli soldiers or not. Thankfully, the Israeli government released its own edited footage of the raid that appeared to show some of the activists resisting the commandos who were dropping in on their ship from helicopters in international waters. Footage shot by journalists and activists aboard the ships was confiscated by Israel and therefore unavailable for media review, but this did not prevent the predictable conclusions from being drawn. Perhaps if Somali pirates shot footage of their hijackings in the Indian Ocean, we would see similar scenes in which crews attempt to fend off the unwelcome intruders.
Interestingly, this all comes in the run up to the 43rd anniversary of Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. During the Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors, on June 8th 1967 a U.S. intelligence gathering ship was the target of an Israeli onslaught for about 90 minutes in broad daylight with the American flag flying high in international waters. Furthermore, the Israelis flew at least eight reconnaissance flights overhead and never once asked the ship to identify itself over radio before the attack. Thirty-four people were killed, with 171 wounded. Crewmen on the Liberty maintain to this day that the attack was deliberate due to the nature of the attack. Former CIA officer Ray McGovern agrees, suggesting the attack was carried out to prevent the Liberty from intercepting Israel communications revealing that it wanted to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, which it did the next day. If the information were obtained and reported back to Washington, the Johnson administration likely would have attempted to put the kibosh on the plan.
Or what about Israel spying on the U.S.? Spying on a friend is no way to treat an “unwavering” ally. Several times the Israel government and even AIPAC have been caught actively engaged in espionage activities against America:
I’m so glad Scott Brown and the rest of the U.S. Congress—both Republicans and Democrats—regard Israel as a staunch ally. At least one of the sides in this “special relationship” thinks so.
I will leave you with this exchange from MSNBC between host (and disgraced former New York governor) Eltiot Spitzer and journalist Glenn Greenwald. While I think the word 'destroy' is used far too often to describe such debates, Greenwald totally wrecks Spitzer's shit. Good stuff. Too bad Greenwald will never be invited back to talk about this subject.
The first rule of the American media’s Middle East “reporting.”
During her recent interview with Barbara Walters, Sarah Palin said this about the illegal Israeli settlements in the OccupiedTerritories:
“I disagree with the Obama administration on that,” Palin told Walters. “I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”
In other words, if you’re a Palestinian who’s been evicted or whose home has been razed by Israeli bulldozers in violation of international law to make way for some Jewish settlers, too fucking bad for you. The population of Israel is going to grow, and after all, they’re people. Palin’s answer is very disturbing, and its rabid, pro-settler rhetoric goes beyond even the usual Israel-friendly shtick from American conservatives. But while Palin’s rhetoric is unusual in that it seems to give blanket approval to all Israeli settlements, the fact is, her answer basically reflects the actual policy of the United States government on this issue. Unsurprisingly, nobody in the American media has batted an eyelash at this statement, or even reported on it, for that matter.
When it comes to reporting Israel-Palestine issues, the American press is absolutely atrocious. Thus, it is not surprising that most Americans have no substantive understanding of the issues at hand, Sarah Palin included.
For example, a vast majority of Americans have no idea that in its assault on Gaza late last year and early this year, Israel used chemical warfare in the form of white phosphorus bombs. Officially, the conflict was called the Gaza War, but the casualty figures indicate that “war” might not be an appropriate term. The following statistics are from B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group. Their findings were consistent with other organizations such as Amnesty International.
Gaza “War” casualties
Israelis: 13 (3 civilians)
Gazans: 1,387 (773 civilians)
These numbers don’t suggest a war. They indicate a mass slaughter. In this massacre, Israeli soldiers killed almost as many Israeli soldiers (four), as their enemy did (six). The pretext for the Israeli assault was a regular culprit: Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israeli territory. The official story of the American mainstream media outlets was that these were completely unprovoked violations of a ceasefire reached between Hamas and Israel on June 19th 2008, and that Hamas bore responsibility for the subsequent exchange of fire over the next several months. But in fact it was the Israeli Defense Forces who broke the six-month truce on no less than seven occasions back between June 20th and June 26th alone, according to a United Nations report. (CNN also, in a brief moment of actual reporting, confirmed this at the time.) That report was recently condemned by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 344-36, which means that 344 representatives would rather stick their fingers in their ears than hear what an independent commission had to say on the subject. Take a look at what Republican representativeIleana Ros-Lehtinen, who wrote the resolution, said about Israeli actions:
“Even in the fog of war, it is clear that Israel took every reasonable measure to minimize the risk of civilian casualties. It is clear that Israel had every right and duty to defend its citizens from the onslaught of rocket and mortar attacks from Hamas and other militants in Gaza.”
How far is Ros-Lehtinen’s head up her ass that she can look at the official figures and conclude that “it is clear that Israel took every reasonable measure to minimize the risk of civilian casualties”? Let’s just say I think she’s in a pretty good position to give herself a very thorough colonoscopy.
Even if Hamas had in fact violated the ceasefire, would hapless rocket attacks warrant the killing of nearly 800 Palestinian civilians to Israel’s three in response? Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, but holy shit. That’s literally overkill. Sadly, this is par for the course. In any given conflict involving Israel and the OccupiedTerritories, we can always count on way higher casualty figures on the Palestinian side, guaranteed. And whatever short-term security Israel was able to obtain by the destruction of several Hamas outposts and a few hundred fighters, this will surely be offset by long lasting feelings of animosity by the thousands of Palestinians who were directly affected by actions of the Israeli Defense Forces. Alas, the shit-cycle will continue well into the future.
Of course, you rarely hear anything that even approaches a condemnation of Israeli crimes in the American media. Reports on Palestinian crimes are aplenty, that’s for sure, and with good reason. But to open a newspaper or to turn on cable news for reports about the ongoing conflict, is to be incessantly reminded that the Palestinians are basically a bunch of terrorists hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state, while Israel is unfailingly portrayed as a beacon for democracy in the Middle East simply defending itself against a crazed Palestinian menace. You know, one of the good guys.
Here’s a quick trivia question for you:
Which Middle Eastern country is presently in violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, rebuffs any calls for it to disclose the extent of its nuclear program, and outright refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which has been agreed to by 189 countries?
If you guessed Iran, you are wrong. The country described above is Israel.
Iran has been receiving a great deal of media attention for its fledgling nuclear program, which the country’s leadership claims is for civilian energy purposes only. This is undoubtedly a lie, but in terms of disclosure of nuclear activity, Israel’s record on this front is far worse than Iran’s. But again, you’d never know it if you get all of your foreign affairs information from the U.S. corporate media. News story after news story derides Iran for its lack of transparency about its nuclear program, questions whether it’s living up to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, etc. Of course, the concern is warranted because it would not be in the world’s best interests if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons. However, the double standard here is amazing, yet nonetheless routine. Officially, Israel’s position on its alleged nuclear weapons is one of opacity, which means that they might have nukes, and they might not. Well, everyone knows that they do in fact have a couple of hundred nuclear weapons, but the Israeli leadership is not going to acknowledge this fact. As for inspections of suspected nuclear facilities and arsenals in the country, that prospect is not discussed by anyone in the West because it is literally an impossibility. It cannot even be mentioned in the mainstream media.
So not surprisingly, when Sarah Palin or anyone says outrageous things about how Israel should keep building illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, no one in the U.S. media really gives a fuck.
“Yesterday the Jerusalem municipality razed two Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, one in Isawiyah and one in Silwan. In both cases, local residents battled security forces.” (Haaretz, 11/19/09)
Nine hundred more units are planned for the East Jerusalem settlement of Gilo, which is regarded as illegal by the United Nations, the European Union, basically everyone except Israel and the U.S.
Like Palin said, the population of Israel is going to grow, and it’s becoming clearer by the day that the country is looking for more and more Lebensraum for its people, Arabs be damned. Just about every presidential administration since the 1970s has expressed concern over Israel settlement expansions into Palestinian territory, but none have done a whole lot to stop it. Like his predecessors, Obama has mildly condemned the land-grabs while giving a wink and a nudge to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government. Essentially, Obama has continued America’s official Israel/Palestine policy of enablement.
In the wake of this month’s shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. in which an 88 year-old white supremacist killed an African-American security guard, the Anti-Defamation League and its representatives have been making their rounds in the national media. The ADL is an organization whose stated mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” But in reality a large part of their mission is to smear and stifle public figures who dare criticize the Jewish state of Israel, particularly for its use of aggressive (and sometimes unlawful) tactics against Palestinians.
Take for example, the case of William Robinson, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. In April it was revealed that Abraham Foxman, the old fart who heads the ADL, insisted that the university investigate Robinson because in his class he had distributed photos of Israeli crimes against Palestinians juxtaposed with photos of Jews being brutalized in ghettos by the Germans during World War II. Apparently two students were so offended they withdrew from the course, and shortly thereafter Foxman and company were on the scene demanding that the professor be investigated for anti-Semitism.
Can the ADL really be so daft as to not see the point of the juxtaposed photographs? Crimes are crimes no matter who carries them out, or whom they are carried out against. Of course, the ADL knows this perfectly well, but Foxman et al. will be damned if they let a professor at a public university make such a powerful statement at the expense of the Israeli military. Indeed, that they cannot have; for the ADL may be against “the defamation of the Jewish people,” but they are certainly in favor of defaming those who speak out against the actions of the Jewish state, and they do so by declaring or implying that such people are anti-Semites, which is a social kiss of death in our society, especially for academics.
I could furnish several other instances where the ADL has sought to terrorize academia by targeting professors critical of Israel. Certainly this happened with Noam Chomsky in the infamous Faurisson Affair. While one can learn a lot about the dishonesty of the ADL by examining such cases, the most damning indictment of the organization’s disingenuousness can be found in its position on the Armenian genocide and that event’s relevance to contemporary international affairs.
In 2007, a seemingly uncontroversial resolution was submitted to Congress by Representative Adam Schiff (D-California and a Jew) recognizing the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1918. Then President Bush—that great defender and upholder of the sanctity of human life—urged Congress to reject the resolution. Here’s what he said: “We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915, but this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to relations with a key ally in NATO, and to the war on terror.” Bush was of course referring to the fact that Turkey—the Ottoman successor state and Muslim ally of the U.S.—would be none too happy with a simple non-binding resolution which would rightfully indict their forebears for perpetrating one of the greatest atrocities in history. From Bush’s incredible statement we are forced to draw the conclusion that he is (was) in favor of recognizing mass killing and genocide only when America’s political and foreign relations are not inconvenienced by doing so.
What does this have to do with the ADL? Well amazingly the ADL—a Jewish organization which knows all too well the horrors of genocide—was behind the president 100% on this. Like the U.S., Israel is also an ally of Turkey, and an even closer ally of the U.S. And so the ADL felt that this resolution represented a threat to this relationship because it would alienate the Turks. In one of the most cowardly statements ever issued, this is what Foxman had to say about the controversy:
We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide.
I have consulted with my friend and mentor Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and other respected historians who acknowledge this consensus. I hope that Turkey will understand that it is Turkey’s friends who urge that nation to confront its past and work to reconcile with Armenians over this dark chapter in history.
Having said that, we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.
Short of maintaining that the genocide never happened, or that it did happen but that it was a good thing, can you imagine a more deplorable statement to issue about such a terrible event? For a moment, imagine that a group of Jews in the United States wants Congress to pass another resolution recognizing the horrors of the Holocaust. Now imagine that the German American National Congress (a nonpolitical group simply seeking to preserve German culture among German-Americans) protests by declaring that they “firmly believe that a [U.S.] Congressional Resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion.” We can easily predict what the response would be—something along the lines of nationwide indignation at the suggestion that recognizing the Holocaust would be a “counterproductive diversion.” And yet this is precisely what the ADL said what recognizing the Armenian genocide would amount to. While I understand that the ADL is an organization dedicated primarily to Jewish causes, its mission statement nonetheless declares that it seeks “justice and fair treatment for all.” Furthermore, one would think that the ADL would be a bit touchier when it comes to the subject of genocide and would thus refuse to tolerate any pussyfooting around the issue in any and all instances of it. One would think that, but one would be wrong.
Thankfully some in the ADL broke ranks with Foxman. Among them was Andrew Tarsy, the regional director of the ADL in New England, who was fired after he called Foxman’s position on the issue “morally indefensible.” Additionally in Watertown, Massachusetts, where Armenians comprise a sizeable minority, the town council voted unanimously to withdraw the town from the ADL’s “No Place For Hate” campaign in what was a very appropriate response to the organization’s abhorrent stance.
In short, ladies and gentlemen, the ADL is an organization which cloaks itself in the righteousness that comes with fighting for human and civil rights. But yank away this spurious shroud and we can plainly see the ADL for what it really is: an ugly organization which, though it sometimes legitimately crusades against real forms of anti-Semitism, is at bottom more about preserving political agendas and alliances at the expense of the very ideals it claims to be protecting.
